مشاوره های متعدد در دانشگاه: توسعه شبکه استادی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|8335||2004||21 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||10171 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 64, Issue 2, April 2004, Pages 263–283
Previous studies in business organizations have shown that mentoring provides numerous benefits for both individuals and organizations. Most of this mentoring research has been based on traditional, hierarchical mentor–protégé relationships in non-academic settings. We discuss why there is little empirical research on faculty mentoring and review changes in professors’ careers that necessitate a fresh look at this issue. We suggest that because of environmental changes, the traditional model of professors being guided throughout their careers by one primary mentor, usually the dissertation advisor, may no longer be realistic or desirable. Instead, professors may be better served by a portfolio of mentors (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins & Kram, 2001) who facilitate the protégé’s development of career competencies. Building on the work of intelligent careers (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1996), we examine how the career competencies of knowing why, how, and whom interact with learning demands to produce the need for faculty to develop multiple mentoring relationships across their academic career. We build on this conceptualization by considering the role of signaling of career competencies (Jones, 2002) in developing the professorial network, offering managerial implications in developing mentoring programs, and discussing avenues for future research.
Mentoring is a powerful process for enhancing the development of individuals and organizations (Allen, Poteet, & Burroughs, 1997; Arnold & Johnson, 1997; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Higgins & Kram, 2001; see Ragins, 1997 for a recent review). Individuals who have a mentor report higher job satisfaction, compensation, promotions, as well as lower turnover intentions and less work–non-work conflict (Allen, Russell, & Maetzke, 1997; Dreher & Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989; Higgins, 2000; Nielson, Carlson, & Lankau, 2001; Scandura & Viator, 1994; Tenenbaum, Crosby, & Gliner, 2001; Viator & Scandura, 1991; Wallace, 2001). Organizations benefit from mentoring as well, as mentors facilitate the socialization process, help acculturate junior members of the organization, and foster more positive attitudes toward their work settings and higher organizational commitment (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1994; Baugh, Lankau, & Scandura, 1996; Fagenson, 1989; Hunt & Michael, 1983; Kram, 1985; Lankau & Scandura, 2002; Whiting & de Janasz, in press; Wilson & Elman, 1990). Traditional definitions of mentoring suggest a dyadic relationship in which the more experienced mentor helped guide the career of a younger organizational member as this protégé learned to “navigate the world of work” (Kram, 1985, p. 2) and moved up the firm’s hierarchy (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978; Ragins, 1997). Much of the mentoring research has been conducted within traditional organizational settings with traditional, dyadic mentor–protégé relationships (Allen et al., 1997; Chao, 1997; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). However, changes in the workplace in general and in our conceptualization of careers in particular (see Sullivan, 1999 for a recent review), have necessitated a shift in our thinking about the process of mentoring (Higgins, 2000; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Kram & Hall, 1996). Complexities and challenges in the contemporary environment render the single master–apprentice mentor model insufficient. Individuals need to consider relying not just on one but on multiple, diverse individuals to provide needed development to succeed in their chosen career (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Higgins, 2000; Higgins & Kram, 2001; Kram, 1985; Thomas & Higgins, 1996). Having a network of mentors can provide a protégé with a variety of developers with different perspectives, knowledge, and skills and who can serve different mentoring functions such as being a role model or providing career-related or emotional support (Baugh & Scandura, 1999; Burt, 1992; Eby, 1997; Higgins, 2000; Kram & Isabella, 1985). Despite the growth of mentoring research in the management literature and the research on the mentoring of graduate students (Tenenbaum et al., 2001), there are relatively few empirical studies on the mentoring of professors. Three key reasons may explain this. First, it is presumed that faculty are well prepared for their careers and therefore do not require a mentor. Most entrants in academe are expected to have studied extensively to acquire their degrees and have had extensive one-on-one apprenticeship-like training with their dissertation advisor (Betz, 1997). Duderstadt (2001, p. 35) notes that: “Our current paradigm of graduate education is based on an important, yet fragile, relationship between the graduate student and the faculty that evolves from mentorship into collegiality. Graduate students are expected to attach themselves early and tightly to individual professors.” It is assumed that the master scholar/faculty advisor develops the skills of the apprentice/doctoral student, thoroughly preparing him/her for using these skills throughout his/her career (Betz, 1997). Because other well-trained professionals (e.g., lawyers, accountants) typically do not have this kind of master–apprentice relationship, the need for mentoring in such fields may be more apparent and thus the subject of more investigation (e.g., Scandura & Viator, 1994). Second, the separation of management and labor in an academic environment is more permeable than in many business organizations. In a traditional business environment, one might expect to find a wide variation in terms of employees’ education, experience, and responsibilities between hierarchical layers. For this reason, management scholars have warned that employees who are promoted are likely to face many new challenges and need to be prepared for them, perhaps through the guidance of a mentor (e.g., Brett, Feldman, & Weingart, 1990). By contrast, professors of different ranks within an academic environment typically have the same education level and relatively similar experiences and responsibilities, albeit a different mix. College administrators (management) are typically academicians who have accepted the additional responsibility of managing other academics (labor) and engaging in cost-cutting, fund-raising, or other administrative activities. Although traditional business organizations typically have top-down hierarchical reporting relationships, with the exception of the top level administrators (e.g., department chair or dean), professors have few supervisors and these supervisors have limited power because of benefits unique to academe including tenure and academic freedom. Moreover, within the faculty ranks, full professors do not manage associate professors and associate professors do not manage assistant professors. Because of management’s and labor’s shared professional interests and experiences in teaching and research, it may appear that the barriers to academic career advancement are fewer than in business organizations, thus supposedly reducing the professor’s need for mentoring. Further, whereas promotions in business may require a much different set of knowledge, skills and responsibilities, most promotions in an academic environment (from assistant to associate to full) usually bring about only marginal changes in a professor’s required tasks and responsibilities, again supposedly reducing a professor’s need for mentoring. Third, the three-rung tenure track academic career ladder (assistant, associate, and full professor) does not parallel the traditional, multi-layered organizational hierarchy. Therefore, the need to have and utilize internal and external sources to obtain necessary opportunities, connections and visibility seems less clear in academe than in a traditional environment (Zanna & Darley, 1987). Boice (1991) interviewed faculty about their careers, and reported many did not believe they needed mentors. For example, in response to whether a new faculty member would be interested in having a mentor on campus, one faculty member stated: “No, I think I am too busy for that… and I’m not sure what such a person could tell me. That’s why I decided to become a professor; I like to have good people around me but I prefer to manage on my own.” (Boice, 1991, p. 154). Although research (Sorcinelli, 2002) suggests that support from senior faculty, chairs, deans and other campus administrators is critical to the success of new faculty, many of the department chairs interviewed by Boice (1991, p. 156) expressed the opinion that “the best faculty seem to figure these things out on their own.” Many faculty believe in the “sink or swim model” of career advancement; as reported by one of Boice’s (1991, p. 165) faculty interviewees “… no one cares what I’m doing… they make a big deal of my one poor teaching rating but not one of them has offered to help. This system would be considered madness in industry. They wouldn’t… recruit a doctoral-level specialist and then watch him or her fail.” Faculty who do survive the tenure process are presumed “set for life” and to have few career concerns. Thus, it appears that many professors do not view mentoring as a priority. Given the relatively small amount of empirical research on the mentoring of professors (see Hall & Sandler, 1983; Hill, Bahniuk, & Dobos, 1989 for exceptions), especially in the management literature, the goal of this article is to integrate the literatures on intelligent careers and signaling of career competencies to better understand how a network of mentors can assist in the development of a professor’s career, and to suggest further avenues of inquiry within the context of career competencies. We hope that this effort encourages further research on developmental relationships across individuals’ careers, and a better understanding of professors’ careers in particular. In the following section, we examine recent environmental changes and their impact on academic careers. Next, we address these changing demands, and discuss how career competencies (knowing why, how and whom) and signaling to convey information to others about these competencies help professors match themselves to potential mentors and aid in professors’ development and career advancement. We suggest that some professors may already have multiple developmental relationships, beyond the traditional dyadic mentoring model described in the literature (Betz, 1997; Duderstadt, 2001), which have helped them navigate the changing work landscape. We recommend that more professors examine their careers and consider developing such relational networks in order to increase their career advancement and satisfaction. Finally, we discuss implications and directions for future research.